1. ST Cir. No. 176: Clarification regarding issue of Discharge Certificate under VCES & availment of CENVAT credit  (Click for detail)
   

2. ST Cir. No. 175: Levy of service tax on services provided by a RWA to its own members  (Click for detail)
   

3. CX Noti. No. 2: CENVAT Credit (Second Amendment) Rules, 2014 - Credit allowed on goods cleared under Noti. No.1/2010-CX  (Click for detail)
   

4. RBI Cir. No. 95: Merchanting Trade Transactions  (Click for detail)

5. RBI Cir. No. 96: Facilities for Persons Resident outside India–Clarification  (Click for detail)

6. RBI to withdraw all currency notes, including Rs 500 and Rs 1000, issued before 2005  (Click for detail)
   

   
   
 

1.  CIT Vs. Smt. Prem Lata Sethi, ITA No. 36 of 2009, Date of order: 25.10.2013, High Court of Allahabad

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

“Whether tribunal is justified in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit without giving any clear finding regarding creditworthiness of creditors and genuineness of transaction.”

Held: No

The transaction through bank is not sufficient as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465. Merely because the money is transferred through the bank account does not prove that the money is explained. The appellate authorities have not examined the creditworthiness of the persons or genuineness of the transactions. It was observed that the remand report was not considered and thus the facts are not clear in the case. The hon’ble court restored the matter back to the Tribunal.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  M/s JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. Vs. ITO, ITA No. 2723/Del/2012, Date of Decision: 13.01.2014, ITAT -Delhi

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

“Whether without giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and without serving the mandatory notices as per law, addition u/s Sec. 68 of the I.T. Act is justified.”

Held: No

During the assessment proceedings the AO found certain credit entries in the bank account of the assessee and made addition as the assessee failed to submit any details and supporting evidence in this regard. The CIT (A) also confirmed the order of the AO by passing exparte order. The hon’ble tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with sufficient opportunity of being heard as the assessment order was passed on 28.12.2007 and the AO raised the query on 20.12.2007 and within a short time the assessee was not in a position to submit the necessary details. The hon’ble tribunal directed the AO to consider the case afresh, after giving the adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

(Please click here for judgment)